Evelyn Gordon writes about three columns in Ha’aretz that show resistance to the charms of President Obama. (h/t Israel Matzav). She concludes:
When even the hard-core leftists of Haaretz’s editorial board feel that a) Obama seems hostile to Israel and b) his policies actually undermine the peace process, his American Jewish supporters ought to take note.
Because no matter how sincerely Obama wants peace, a president who has lost even Israel’s hard left has no chance of delivering it.
Ari Shavit, another columnist for Ha’aretz looks at what President Obama might have done differently. (tweeted by David Hazony):
President Barack Obama made two bad mistakes in his treatment of Israel: He lost the trust of both the Israeli public and the Israeli prime minister. Neither mistake was really necessary. Despite their previous wariness, most Israelis were quite happy to see Obama in the White House. Despite a few suspicions, our prime minister was quite charmed by the young senator from Illinois and his meteoric rise.
If Obama had embraced Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu, he would have achieved what Anwar Sadat, Bill Clinton and King Hussein did. He would have melted the right, conquered the center and brought Israel to the left. An Israel-loving Obama truly committed to Israel’s security would have easily become the king of Israel.
Obama is different from Clinton. Clinton followed an administration that was largely viewed as anti-Israel. Clinton also got to work with Yitzchak Rabin and Shimon Peres for nearly four years before Netanyahu was elected. In other words Clinton built up his pro-Israel credentials by working with Israeli Prime Minister’s who were more in tune with his worldview. Had Yitzchak Shamir been re-elected in 1992, he might not have had that reputation. Similarly, had Tzipi Livni defeated Netanyahu, I don’t think we’d be hearing about all the friction between the Obama administration and Israel.
But I think Shavit is portraying a false Obama. As a candidate Obama made his distaste for the Likud clear. But perhaps more telling was his comment to Jewish leaders concerning the question as to whether there should be “daylight” between the American administration and Israel’s government:
“He said, ‘The United States and Israel were very, very close for eight years, and it produced very little,’ ” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, described as one of the more aggressive questioners during the 45-minute session.
Shavit may view President Obama’s approach towards the Middle East as a “mistake,” but, even now, I don’t think the President does. He is very much in agreement with his supporters in J-Street that the only way to bring peace to the Middle East is to pressure Israel. In a more general look at the President, Sean Trende writes:
The first is that Obama isn’t governing as a centrist because he isn’t a centrist. If you accept this as true, the Obama Administration makes perfect sense. If you don’t, then I admit it can be confusing.
It was amazing that Obama was able to maintain his stature as a Rohrschach candidate throughout the campaign. Liberals, moderates, and even some conservatives were able to see whatever they wanted to see in him, and were convinced that everyone else was going to be disappointed once he started governing.
The President is an ideologue. Ideologue’s don’t make mistakes. Everyone else does.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
